Ecumenical Councils Crisis Response Model n Example Nicaea

Ecumenical Councils Crisis & Response Model n Example: Nicaea, 325 n The Logic of Conciliar Christology n Five Interpretations of Arianism n Seminar n

Central Issue: ‘Who do you say that I am? ’ n What is Jesus’ relationship to God the Father? n What is Jesus’ relationship to human beings?

Councils: Crisis and Response model 1. 2. 3. 4. Crisis. Preliminary discussion. Council. Reception.

Council of Nicaea 1. 2. 3. 4. Crisis: Arius goes public with his teaching in 318. Preliminary discussion: exchange of letters between the protagonists (e. g. Arius, Alexander of Alexandria, Eusebii). Council: Summoned by Constantine I, produces a creed. Reception: the controversy goes on for the next 50+ years.

What makes a council ecumenical? “[N]o synod should be cited in the Catholic Church save only that which was held at Nicaea, which was a monument of victory over all heresy. ” --Athanasius, Ad Epictetum, 1. Really? And why is that?

What factors make a council ecumenical? 1. Reductionist view: Historical luck & Power-hungry bishops. 2. Non-reductionist view: 1. 2. 3. Broad representation. Importance of issues. Later approval by the mind of the Church.

‘Ziggurat’ Conciliar Christology ? 7: UNITY IN ICONOGRAPHY 6: DISTINCTION OF WILLS 5: UNITY-IN-DISTINCTION 4: DISTINCTION OF DIVINITY & HUMANITY 3: UNITY OF DIVINITY AND HUMANITY 2: FULL HUMANITY 1: FULL DIVINITY

Gavrilyuk (gently) deconstructing Gavrilyuk n n What about theological ‘losers’? Hegel redivivus? What about pre-Nicene christologies? Enter your objections here… Pablo Picasso, The Poet (1911)

Five interpretations of Arianism 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Eclectic ‘Platonist’ subordinationism. Strict monotheism. (J. H. Newman; Thomas Kopecek). Literalist biblicism (Maurice Wiles). Exemplarist soteriology (Robert Gregg and Denis Groh). The passibility of the Logos (Maurice Wiles and Richard Hanson).

Five interpretations of Arianism 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Eclectic ‘Platonist’ subordinationism. Strict monotheism. (J. H. Newman; Thomas Kopecek). Literalist biblicism (Maurice Wiles). Exemplarist soteriology (Robert Gregg and Denis Groh). The passibility of the Logos (Maurice Wiles and Richard Hanson).

Thomas Kopecek on Arianism: Arianism “emerged from and was nourished by a conservative eucharistic liturgical tradition which was pronouncedly Jewish-Christian in character. ” n Kopecek, “Neo-Arian Religion: the Evidence of the Apostolic Constitutions”, Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments (1985), 155

Five interpretations of Arianism 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Eclectic ‘Platonist’ subordinationism. Strict monotheism. (J. H. Newman; Thomas Kopecek). Literalist biblicism (Maurice Wiles). Exemplarist soteriology (Robert Gregg and Denis Groh). The passibility of the Logos (Maurice Wiles and Richard Hanson).

Select NT texts ‘The Father is greater than I. ’ Jn 14: 28. ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. ’ Mk 10: 18. ‘Of that day or that hour no one knows, …nor the Son, but only the Father. ’ Mk 13: 32. ‘Then the Son himself will also be subjected to Him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to everyone. ’ 1 Cor 15: 24. ‘For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus’ ‘In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was God. ’ Jn 1: 1 -2. ‘No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known. ’ Jn 1: 18. The words of ‘unbelieving’ Thomas: ‘My Lord and my God. ’ Jn 20: 28. ‘In him (Christ) the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily. ’ Col 2: 9.

The range of arguments deployed in the Arian controversy: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Theories of analogy, meaning, reference and the limitations of religious language. --example: what is meant by “begotten”? Interpretation of the Bible: titles of Jesus; consideration of individual passages; the overall purpose of scripture. The logic and meaning of the local baptismal creeds. The appeal to the precedents of conciliar agreements (after Nicaea). Large scale metaphysical presuppositions & “fittingness” arguments. The implicit theologies of the sacraments of baptism and Eucharist. The implications of worshipping Christ and addressing prayers to him. The ascetic experience of liberation from the power of evil by means of the invocation of the name of Jesus. The logic of salvation (i. e. , what kind of Savior is needed to accomplish reunion between God and humanity). Reductio ad heresim, ad hominem arguments, mutual accusations of immorality, political pressure.

Five Interpretations of Arianism 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Eclectic ‘Platonist’ subordinationism. Strict monotheism. (J. H. Newman; Thomas Kopecek). Literalist biblicism (Maurice Wiles). Exemplarist soteriology (Robert Gregg and Denis Groh). The suffering of the divine Logos (Maurice Wiles and Richard Hanson).

Hanson-Wiles interpretation Richard Hanson: “at the heart of the Arian Gospel was a God who suffered. ” Maurice Wiles: “The mainspring and primary motivation of the [Arian] movement should be seen in its determination to safeguard the presentation of Christ’s passion and crucifixion as unequivocally the passion and crucifixion of God. ”

Gregory of Nyssa against later Arians: n “Both sides believe in the economy of the passion. We [the Orthodox] hold that the God who was manifested by the cross should be honored in the same way in which the Father is honored. For them [the Eunomians] the passion is a hindrance to glorifying the only-begotten God equally with the Father who begot him… For it is clear that the reason why he [Eunomius] sets the Father above the Son, and exalts him with supreme honor is that in the Father is not seen the shame of the Cross. He insists that the nature of the Son is inferior because the reproach of the Cross is referred to the Son alone, and does not touch the Father. ” n Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium, 3. 3. 691 -696 (J ii. 118120).